BERKELEY — Nobody remembers the beginning, but that’s the way it always is, in a novel, for a football season.

Nobody remembers Cal was once unbeaten through five games, was virtually No. 1 in the country for a few minutes.

“It’s easy to focus on the end,” said Jeff Tedford, the Cal coach.

Focus on the Bears losing six of the last seven.

Focus on the decline from a possible place in the BCS Championship game to a possible place in the Rose Bowl to a place in the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl, a name that by itself is an indication of something less than enthralling.

Focus on the concept that winning six games, as did Cal makes a team eligible for the postseason, even if you lose six games, as did Cal.

Poor Jeff. Coach of the only major university or pro football team in the Bay Area with a chance at a winning record.

Coach of a school playing in bowl game a fifth consecutive year.

Coach of a team judged less against what it accomplished than what it failed to accomplish.

School was out. Literally. Football practice was in. The Bears were on the wet turf at Memorial Stadium on Thursday, kids once more playing a kids game.

A different kind of practice, Tedford would say later, starters against starters, “guys cutting loose,” guys ready to play Air Force in the Armed Forces Bowl, Dec.31.

Guys, as one of them, DeSean Jackson, would say, “trying to get that bad taste out of our months.”

Whatever was wrong with the Bears, Nate Longshore’s injury, an overrated defense, has one more chance to be corrected. Or one more chance to be continued. A 7-6 record, however unimpressive, is superior to 6-7.

Naturally the question was presented whether a 6-6 team deserved to be in a bowl game (e-mail copy to UCLA). Tedford’s answer was logical, if these days the whole college football picture is not.

“I don’t make the rules,” the coach said. “The rules are if you have six wins, you’re eligible. Somewhere along the line, even though we don’t have 10 wins, like last year, some other people in our conference don’t have six wins either.

“Everybody seems to forget there were those five wins at the beginning of the year. You know, I have a tendency to forget about those too. That seems like a long time ago. Had a lot of misery since then.”

Misery and doubts. Should the routine be changed? Or, as some suggested — Tedford never considered the possibility — should the quarterback be changed?

Did all the things that were right the first five games inexplicably go wrong most of the final seven?

“We told ourselves,” Tedford said, speaking collectively, “we’ve won quite a few games around here doing what we do, and there hadn’t been a problem before. But there’s a different sort of circumstances. We’ve never been in this position of having this type of end to a season.”

Jackson, the great receiver, a possible early entry in the NFL draft, missed the second half of the loss against Washington and the entire loss against Stanford. He wasn’t there. The Cal offense wasn’t there.

Bowl games are strange, a second season that can embellish the regular season. Or ruin it. A long gap between games. Final exams in the classroom. For years Big Ten schools would have their reputations pummeled in the Rose Bowl. You never know quite what will happen.

“It’s been difficult coming down the stretch,” Tedford conceded. “There’s been a lot of adversity. It’s tough on everybody. We’ll be working on addressing that in the offseason, on getting our confidence back.”

Such a fine line. Such a long way to fall. From 10-3, including a bowl win in 2006, to 6-6 heading to a bowl game in 2007.

“A six-win season could have been a 10-win season very easily,” Tedford said. He was making an observation not an excuse. “A 10-win season a year ago could have been a six-win season very easily. Our guys played hard. We just couldn’t find a way to win.”

Maybe the guys aren’t good enough. Presumably the coach is.

He didn’t suddenly get dumb the beginning of October. The inquiries about him perhaps moving to another school still came in, if not in the number of the previous year.

More in News

"There is a general recognition that we don't need these military-style weapons in New Zealand, so it's very easy to win cross-party support for this," said Mark Mitchell, who was defense minister in the previous, center-right government and who supports the ban initiated by the center-left-led Labour Party.